I’m writing in response to the paid ad taken out by the Objectivist Club. I realize that given its length, I was probably only one of about 10 people who read the whole thing. Upon first reading the ad, I thought it might be one, but wasn’t sure. A quick search of the page showed no notice. A later detailed search showed a mildly smudged "The above is a paid advertisement." Given that the club had to pay for their space, and I don’t, I’m not sure that this is fair. However, being one who is willing to discuss philosophies about life, and often trying to work in others’ frameworks, I will take this advantage if given. After all, one of the premises of objectivism is to act in self-interest (Ayn Rand’s words, not mine).
Which brings me to my topic—self-interest. Consider for a moment that for a first sigma approximation countries can be considered as a single entity, not as a bunch of parts. So we have a person called US who has been attacked. The question now is what is in US’s self-interest to do in response. The ad recommended a war not just against Afghanistan but also going after Iran and other states. They try to make an argument that it is in the self-interest of US to do so. "Why stop there?" I ask. Resources are limited. It is in the self-interest of the US to eliminate all competitors for those resources—friend and foe alike. And when done there, we should recognize that US is not an entity per se, but really a group of self-interested individuals. Therefore, as an individual each of us should eliminate the other in our competition for resources.
Now obviously that is over the deep end, but it is the logical conclusion of the objectivist philosophy. I suppose an objectivist might respond, "There are other things that benefit the self other than resources." Oh really? I guess I forgot to mention the other points of laissez-faire capitalism: The only reality is the objective reality (emotions aren’t to be considered real) and reason. Each of these ideas is to an extent correct but not in the totality that objectivism holds to be true.
The wise reader by now has decided that I may have put a few holes in objectivism, but what are the alternatives? There are a lot but I shall restrict my answer to the ad taken out in last week’s Poly, and not go much beyond that scope. I agree with the ad’s assessment that we need to do something to stop terrorism. I disagree on the what. The elimination of a people (a.k.a. genocide) will only make other peoples fear us and make it harder, not easier, for long-term peace. I also agree that the people who did this conflict with our beliefs. There are many in the area who see us as not as heroes, but as villains. There must be a path chosen that destroys the powers that oppose us while supporting the whole of those people. Looking back in history we find that after WWII, the U.S. spent millions (perhaps trillions in inflation adjusted dollars) to rebuild Germany and Japan. A similar approach must be taken here that will erode popular support for the terrorists and create some for us.
Yes, I’m suggesting that we give food—one of mankind’s most desperate needs—to the people while targeting the leaders for removal. Preferably taking those criminals alive and to justice, but if not, then taken dead. Am I concerned about hitting civilians? Some, but not much. By now those in harms way are either supporting the leaders, or held there by the leaders. In either case their blood is also on the hands of those who prevent them from going to a safer location.
One last thought—this is a pretty long letter, and I can only hope the same people who saw and read the first ad will also see and read this.
Alan Catelli
MGMT GRAD
